Thursday, June 09, 2016

I am not a conservative and I have long had to correct those who mistakenly believed I was. Nevertheless, I promised John C. Wright that I would address his question concerning when and how "conservative" became a label to avoid, and who was responsible for the destruction of the ideological brand.

I am a conservative. Four months ago on this blog, if I had said that, everyone here would assume I mean conservative as opposed to 'establishment republican' meaning small-gov, separation-of-powers, gun-toting, Christ-loving, pro-family, strong-military, mistrustful of big government and big business.

Now, everyone here uses it as a term of abuse, to refer to the exact same thing, four months ago, you all were using the term 'neocon' or 'GOP establishment' to refer to: globalist, pro-crony-capitalism, Wall-Street-Incest-with-DC, pro-abortion, fuck-the-bible-thumpers, rule-of-man-not-rule-of-law.

Why did you switch the label? Why are you calling the name I call myself to refer, for example, not to what Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have in common (and they have more in common than what separates them) but to what Jeb Bush and Barack Obama have in common (and they agree with each other on all points where I disagree.)

Who or what marred the brand name? When Derbyshire and Anne Coulter was booted out of the good graces of National Review, I assumed National Review had lost it right to call itself conservative, not that Coulter and Derb (and I) were now a part of some new faction with a new name.

If y'all here are using the word conservative to refer to people who don't favor the original intent of the US constitution and don't know jack about history, this word simply does not describe me.

What is the word you use for someone who believes 1. reality is real 2. truth is when thoughts and statements reflect reality 3. beauty is when art reflects natural or divine glory 4. life is sacred 5. family life is sacred 6. the Rights of Man (life, liberty, property) ergo liberty and equality are sacred. God is sacred.

Add to this a love of one's flag and ancestors, a loyal to one's posterity, and a distrust of sudden or violent social change, and you have a crisp and clear picture of what it means to be a conservative.

But you gentlemen neither use the word to mean this, no provide me with any other word to use to describe myself.

I have never had this problem on the Right before, only on the Left. They go through backflips of misdirection and bad definitions to prevent me from having a word to use to refer to myself and those of my camp.

Who or what marred the brand name? Three men, William F. Buckley, (((Norman Podhoretz))), and (((Irving Kristol))). Buckley began the National Review tradition of reading out various members of the Right from "the conservative movement", a tradition which began with Buckley's demonization of the John Birch Society and was subsequently continued by (((David Frum))) and Rich Lowry.

Those read out of conservatism include: Samuel Francis, Paul Craig Roberts, Joe Sobran, Jerry Pournelle, John Derbyshire, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Mark Steyn, among many others. Earlier this year, Commentary lamented Buckley's absence and warned of "The Coming Conservative Dark Age" due to his successors' inability to exercise the same authority when playing conservative thought-police.

"When William F. Buckley Jr. died in 2008 at age 82, conservatives were deprived of his wit, his intelligence, his charisma, and his panache. But they also lost something more important than their leader’s charms. They lost his authority. And they need it now more than ever. It was Buckley who for decades determined the boundaries of American conservatism.... National Review is a great example of media gatekeeping theory: By exiling anti-Semites, Birchers, and anti-American reactionaries from its pages, the magazine and its editor determined which conservative arguments were legitimate and which were not."

Podhoretz, the father of (((John Podhoretz))), was the liberal Democrat who edited Commentary and helped it "transform the Jewish left into the neoconservative right". Irving Kristol, the father of would-be third-party founder (((Bill Kristol))), is the founder of neonconservatism.

"One can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.... Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked."
- Irving Kristol, "The Neoconservative Persuasion"

While the Bush family, and its two presidents, also bear a fair amount of blame for the damage to the conservative brand, no one considered Bush the Elder a conservative and even Bush the Younger had to style himself a "compassionate conservative". The failure of the Republican-controlled White House, House, and Senate to accomplish any of the conservative movement's declared goals also played a role. But it was not until globalists such as John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush were anointed as true and proper conservatives, while avowed American nationalists like Donald Trump and all of his supporters were declared by the mainstream and conservative presses alike to be "not conservative", that the brand was fatally tarnished. The conservative brand is now rightly rejected by the #AltRight and by every American nationalist.

To be a conservative now means to deny that an American national interest exists. It means to be opposed to the very idea that an American nation even exists except as "a proposition" to which one may assent. It means to be a nominal international equalitarian while at the same time putting Israel first. It means to regard GDP as the one true metric of national well-being. It means to advocate a strong US military in order to permit the USA to continue to police the world. It means to believe that the Holocaust is the worst thing ever to happen in human history, except for four score and seven years of slavery in America.

To be conservative means to conserve nothing, not even the posterity of the Founding Fathers, for whom the Constitution was written and whose unalienable rights the Bill of Rights was supposed to secure.

I think the old conservatives would do well to call themselves Constitutionalists, because it is obvious that the current batch don't give a damn about it. And neither do we of the #AltRight, because it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose, but is today being used as a means of hand-cuffing the Right. The #AltRight believes in three things:

Nationalism.

Western civilization.

Winning.

Everything else is negotiable or a means to one of those three ends. We aren't conservatives. We aren't philosophers. And we don't care about the Constitution, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment, the Holocaust, or anything else with capital letters that is likely to get in the way.

A Constitutionalist can be our ally. A Zionist can be our ally. A National Socialist can be our ally. A Pan-Arabist can be our ally. We don't care who you are or what you believe, as long as you're aiming in the direction of the enemies of nationalism and Western civilization.

Such as, for example, the self-styled conservatives who have turned their backs on America and proved themselves to be the Judases of the West, very nearly as dyscivic and dyscivilizational as the Left they nominally oppose. It is perhaps useful, therefore, to understand that conservatism was never what many of today's conservatives erroneously believe it to be. From Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America by John Red Eagle and me:

In the early 1950s, the dominant political ideology in the United States was center-left liberalism, itself a reaction to the excesses of the socialist, totalitarian, eugenics-loving progressive movement. That today’s SJWs have re-embraced the progressive label is no accident and would be material enough for an entire book of its own. We have no plans to write such a book, though, since Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism provides a reasonable description of both the historical antecedent as well as the modern neoprogressive. With the onset of the Cold War, and the embarrassing revelations of the real conditions of life under socialist rule, the American left found itself going through one of its inevitable crises of confidence.

Into that void stepped a small group of intellectuals who set out to remake the even more shattered and demoralized American right. The older right, though sometimes referred to as paleoconservative by modern writers, actually had no such singular identity at the time. Unlike the United Kingdom, in the United States the word “conservative” had not been regularly applied to any particular political party or tradition. At most, it could be said that the older strains of thought shared a common Anglo-Saxon skepticism of centralized power, and a particularly American suspicion of elites, both foreign and domestic. But none of these intellectual strains were of any serious political influence in mid-20th-century America.

The early new rightists were interested in discerning the deeper roots of historical American political thought, and in turning its various strains into a viable, coherent political tradition. Some of them looked so deeply that they found inspiration from decidedly non-American sources, such as British conservative political thought. The latter was a generally elitist tradition, openly contemptuous of American-style independent citizenry and the freewheeling style of American political discourse. Among the leaders of this Anglophile camp was Russell Kirk, who is generally credited with coining the American use of the term conservative as a distinct political label. His most famous work, The Conservative Mind, proved to be quickly and profoundly influential soon after its publication in 1953. Kirk’s book synthesized various ideas from diverse 18th- and 19th-century thinkers, most prominently Edmund Burke, into six canons, or principles, of this new conservatism:

Belief in a transcendent order, or body, of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.

Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.

Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a “classless society.”

Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked.

Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.

Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations.

The astute reader will surely notice that cuckservatism, especially with regards to immigration, directly violates no less than one-third of Kirk’s conservative principles, namely, the last two. Cuckservatism fails to respect tradition, as it manifestly does not distrust those who would reconstruct all of society, and it refuses to recognize the possibility that change of the magnitude necessitated by the size of the 50-year mass migration will destroy, rather than improve, the nation.

Whatever the left may say about them, Kirk’s principles are hardly the stuff of SS rallies. As a set of ideas, they’re not particularly systematic, particularly when compared with more radical philosophies like Marxism and its innumerable offshoots, or at the other extreme, the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. They are arguably more a set of generalized assertions and attitudes rather than principles per se. Even so, they do represent a particular worldview, though it is not the worldview of the Founding Fathers or of the early American political generations.

Notice as well that several of these principles are primarily defined by that which they opposed: the dominant left-liberal worldview of the mid-20th century. From their very beginning the principles of conservatism were subordinate and defensive in nature, or less charitably, they were submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left.

300 Comments:

The rot must have set in earlier as G.K Chesterton wrote this in 1924:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition......The only sort of reform proposed is one which Conservatives will treat as a convention as soon as it is established; and which reformers are already treating as a convention even before it is established.

Even if we define the American nation as those descended from the mostly British founding stock what, in practical terms, does the Alt-Right want to save of America? Is it a white majority or is there anything else to it?

You've mentioned the failure of the Constitution but is the Alt-Right proposing an overhaul/replacement with something else? Nature abhorreth a vacuum and all that.

As to Western Civilization: What aspects does the Alt-Right want to save/advance? I agree that by any measure Western Civilization, with America as a subset, has been the most free, innovative, fair, wealthy, and productive civilization in history. But what version or iteration of it is the one that must be preserved?

What is the word you use for someone who believes 1. reality is real 2. truth is when thoughts and statements reflect reality 3. beauty is when art reflects natural or divine glory 4. life is sacred 5. family life is sacred 6. the Rights of Man (life, liberty, property) ergo liberty and equality are sacred. God is sacred.

How about the word "sane"? That's actually a pretty low bar: even the ancient Aztecs and Babylonians would agree with all five.

So long as "Western Civilization" includes "Jerusalem" (that is Christianity) as well as "Athens". I am in with the 1-3 Alt-right points that Wright describes. The democracy experiment here in the USA has been a complete failure because MPAI. I would rather depend upon my human dignity and rights as a fellow Christian (see the book of Philemon) instead of depending on my right to vote. The current situation in Venezuela aptly demonstrates the folly of relying on the integrity of democracy to protect one's right. I would much rather have my rights endowed by a transcendent creator God.

First things first. What part of the 3 Rs did you find hard to understand? Until the USA return to the pre-1965 racial demographics, nothing else is likely nor is it worth discussing. Note that while I expect an eventual return to the pre-1965 demographics, one way or another, I do not expect the USA to remain intact.

This is good stuff, thank you. For me, I stopped calling myself a conservative years ago when I noticed the likes of Boehner and McConnell giving in to every one of the left's programs, all the while claiming that a vote for them meant that they would "fight" Obama, et al. You don't go into a fight by curling up into the fetal position and sucking your thumb. That's the picture of the modern "conservative."All the things they were supposed to fight for - and to fight against - they failed through cowardice. Fuck 'em. Good riddance.

Hmm...fair enough. I agree that a return to pre-1965 demographics will of necessity mean the end of the USA. It is not built to withstand the kinds of social, political, etc. pressures that making a heterogeneous country into a homogeneous nation would imply.

Good essay, my Dark Lord. I came of age during the time of Reagan, and was appalled by how Bush the Elder, Dole, and McCain turned their backs on his love of country and faith in Western civilization. We called them, not admiringly, "country club Republicans" back in those days. What I didn't realize until McCain was that they had much more in common with liberals/progressives than they did with me. One day, I suspect history will look back on McCain's candidacy as the event that marked the start of the final dissolution of the GoP.

Were there any prominent political figures between the end of the Coolidge Administration and Pat Buchanan's failed 1996 candidacy whose principles were in accord with today's alt right? I am generally aware of nationalist-isolationists putting up a good fight to keep us out of WW2 but their failure seems to have been the beginning of the end of nationalism in American politics and any lingering adherence to the principles of the founders.

anonymos-coward wrote:That's actually a pretty low bar: even the ancient Aztecs and Babylonians would agree with all five.

I very much doubt that peoples who practiced human sacrifice either considered life sacred or believed that man has a Right to life, nor would an autocratic culture agree that man has a Right to liberty or property. I doubt they even had any concept of "liberty".

Specifically on abortion, for the time being at least, abortion is demographically a white-positive factor for the US. Not only that but the alt-Right needs to build bridges to the localist, Berned-out alt-Left. I personally find abortion disgusting but i know well to never stop interfere with my demographic enemies while they're in the process of destroying some of their potential offspring.

On immigration it can easily be seen as an extension of slavery by other means. The Cuckfederacy arose because rich Southern whites refused to pay a white man an honest wage for an honest days work. They preferred to import primitive people from an entirely different stage of development in order to do the work they refused to pay white workers to do. In contrast, in the North, they did pay white workers and their economy flourished. The Cuckfederate South remained a backwards economic colony of Britain.

And so the alt-Right must act as modern day abolitionists by banning the transport of semi-slave Mexican cheap labor into the US. And at the same time we must return the semi-slaves who were illegally imported into the US. Those defending mass 3rd world immigration are just modern day Cuckfederates who are trading a little cheap labor today for centuries of welfare payments and crime to come.

Now that the veil has been lifted, I recoil in disgust every time a conservative whines "the Left isn't playing fair!" Of course they don't, dear.

Conservatives refuse to entertain the thought that the left means business, and plays for keeps. The left wants your money, your job, your family, and your land, and ultimately wants you either ruined or gone.

On immigration it can easily be seen as an extension of slavery by other means.

Good post all around, with my additional note on the above: the GWB-era Mestizo influx into the US was the last big example of immigration as cheap labor. The Obama-era East African airlifts into Minnesota and Idaho, or the Merkel adventure, don't even pretend to be economically motivated. There was a figure that something like 0.3% of immigrants in Sweden are employed. They consume welfare and are paid to breed and incited to harass the native populations.

Mass immigration, as a selling point to win over Bernouts, is much more sinister than slavery.

Some guy comes along and starts having an affair with your mother. Eventually your parents divorce, dad leaves town and this guy who happens to be banging your mom insists that he gets to call the shots under the claim that he is your "new father".

He isn't.

He's the guy who wrecked your family, ruined your young life, turned your mother into a common slut and stole your home. He doesn't get to re-define the reality to suit the definition.

That, in a nutshell, is the conservative movement of the last half century. It's a fugazi. It has conserved nothing, wrecked our national home, brought in all it's ne're do well friends to eat your food and puke on your carpets and all the while demand that the little punks who live there keep bringing them snacks and beer and show them respect.

People need to start worrying a lot less about labels and identify behaviors. And read your Francis Parker Yockey, he saw this coming down the pike and wrote in great detail what awaits us 75 years ago without missing a beat.

This whole post is a shining example of how jews in America have reshaped it to suit their tastes.Israel first, 'globalism', 'multiculturalism' as well as the hard push from the courts to the entertainment industry to the schools to commerce to actively de-Christianize the USA (and the West in general) while promoting/celebrating Judaism, Eastern/pagan beliefs, and especially over the past 15 years or so, islam over the indigenous Christianity of the West.The whole notion that White European Gentiles and their Christianity do not belong anywhere despite one country devoted to a specific religion and several other countries devoted to another one (if you want to call islam a religion).

Marxists lost the battle against capitalism so they turned their sights on the family in order to remove the traditional family unit as an obstacle. Take down the father, indoctrinate the children and you have rabid sjw brownshirts.

The capitalist system with entrenched private property rights provides resistance against the ravenous state encroachment into every facet of our lives. With a strong regulatory system, enforcement, and necessary social programs to enable those to enter said system, the state will appear as the uninvited, remote power player it is.

Not ideal, but better than living under rule by the Dunhams, Soteros, Pelosis etc.

To be a conservative now means to deny that an American national interest exists. It means to be opposed to the very idea that an American nation even exists except as "a proposition" to which one may assent. It means to be a nominal international equalitarian while at the same time putting Israel first. It means to regard GDP as the one true metric of national well-being. It means to advocate a strong US military in order to permit the USA to continue to police the world. It means to believe that the Holocaust is the worst thing ever to happen in human history, except for four score and seven years of slavery in America.

To be a conservative is to be a left-wing Jew of the manner of Rubin, Kristol and the egregious Frum;

To be a conservative is to fight under a flag brandished by the enemy.

To be a conservative is to be at war with the American people.

Hat's off to Kristol and the neocons; they successfully co-opted a movement and transformed it to further their purposes.

They now own the word "conservative". Naturally, it is toxic. Naturally, like the paper dollar, it has lost its purchasing power.

Yes, in 1989. Much earlier, they lost the battle against nationalism, as European workers enlisted to fight in WWI rather than unite as proletarians. Bela Kun's brief reign of terror in Hungary shortly after was Marxists' first application of their attack on the family.

Irinically, workers of the world are uniting today, but not in ways that Marx would have envisioned, as European nationalists are in solidarity with each other across national borders.

@26 I think it is more a matter of conservatives never having had the goal of conserving anything rather than merely being unsuccessful. Obviously, their support of open borders indicates a desire to destroy any cultural foundation of the nation. Their support for Israel and foreign adventures is contrary to the founders' principles and the early foreign policy of the US. And their wars and crony capitalism were funded with debt. So the three pillars of their philosophy targeted the gutting of the country culturally, politically and economically. They are not merely inept do-gooders.

Escoffier, as bad as things have gotten they are still much better than in many other places, and this in spite of the depredations of the last 50 years. Whatever the USA has been transformed into it was a beautiful place once with freedom and opportunity for Americans.

When the USA breaks up it will be a tragic loss of what once was and we will be lucky to get something better than it is now and hardly likely to be as good as it was in the beginning. And only after slogging through blood.

The problem, of course, is that there is no way to turn back the clock. The options are to do nothing and get buried or to win by slogging through the blood to get to the other side.

I hope I am wrong and that the future will eventually be worth it but it is going to be touch and go for awhile, I am afraid.

But the hardship and the end of ease will have a salutory effect on those that live through it by banishing the foolish unreality we are living through now.

"I think the old conservatives would do well to call themselves Constitutionalists..."Meh, I lean toward "originalist". Maybe Alitor(Ah LEE tor), or Alitist (Ah LEE tist)for the benefit of the historically and hysterically challenged victims of institutional lower, and higher, education.CaptDMO

This is worth discussion. Countries are artificial constructs, while, as has been pointed out on this blog, nations are people. In it's current form, the United States of America is unsustainable. It has become an oligarchy with globalist intent where the method of achievement is a sort of pseudo-feudalism. The nouveau-serfs are tied to the tax structure on the economy instead of the land, and there are a handful of people making decisions that have material impact on the everyday lives of the people. For the oligarchy, "the people" have become a commodity, hence the replacement strategy of unrestricted immigration.The type of revolution we are talking about here is not one that can function with an emotional attachment to the artificial construct. If we are to return to being a nation, we are going to have to carve it out of the raw material, which means everything is in play.

Such as, for example, the self-styled conservatives who have turned their backs on America and proved themselves to be the Judases of the West, very nearly as dyscivic and dyscivilizational as the Left they nominally oppose.

To carry this metaphor further... logically the early Christians would have been the extension of the Israelite faith. The followers of The Way should have been called simply the nation of Israel, because The Messiah as promised in the Old Testament had come for the children of Israel.

It didn't happen, because they rejected it, even though The Messiah was promised from the beginning. Waiting for that Messiah was part and parcel of being an Israelite, but those who owned the label rejected the very basis of their belief, simply because He wasn't what they 'wanted'.

The United States is an empire. There is nothing wrong with being an empire: my nation was part of the British Empire and I will be quite glad if the English and Scots and Ulstermen together form a new Empire with my Canadian and Aussie friends. Of course, we will have to get rid of that Cancer of Trudeau, Turnbull, Corbyn and Little, and correct Cameron and Key, but that is our issue.

Empires are made up of countries and counties. You are, in an empire, a Czech or Hungarian. You live in Moravia or on the Maygar Plains. Your loyalty is to your city, your province, your faith... and then the emperor. The size of the empire changes -- Galacia was part of the Polish-Ukranian commonwealth, then Austria-Hungary, then the Soviet Union, and is now part of the Ukraine.

But the people are the same, and the people are the nation. If you want to change the nation, you have to export the people, as Stalin did to Kalingrad -- expelled Balts and Prussians, imported Russians.

The USA may fade. Texas and Ohio and Kentucky and Ontario and Vermont will remain until the LORD comes or they are nuked from orbit.

Do not despair. The progressives are entrenched in their capitals and they are sending out regulations that no one can keep and survive (long) so they are being ignored.

Care for your families and build the faith. That will last. Not even the land we love will do that: if you don't believe me, I can show you what an earthquake does to a modern city, four hours drive from where I am typing.

It seems to me that the major failure of modern conservative movements, which is the deliberate error of the progressive, is to pursue "big ideas" that supposedly transcend material realities. So, basically, what conservatives, in the modern sense, cannot dare grasp is the reality of racial, cultural, and sexual differences as well as other differences which are a part of reality. God is transcendent, not man.

Sherwood family wrote:When the USA breaks up it will be a tragic loss of what once was and we will be lucky to get something better than it is now and hardly likely to be as good as it was in the beginning. And only after slogging through blood.I am not ready to write off the concept of America or the Constitution either one. Yes, I recognize the odds against successfully maintaining either, but there is as yet a path to victory.

One statistic that I had not seen before which was a bit eye-opening for me in Cuckservative was the one that suggests that over 80% of the "immigrants" to America have no intention of staying here; they're here for the "gimme dats". There is currently a lot of political will among the electorate at least (the politicians remain more recalcitrant, but that is clearly only a matter of time with the trends that are ongoing now) to seriously crack down on border security and immigration fraud. That means that the majority of those living here under whatever auspices they came under will have no incentive to stay once the "gimme dats" dry up and the risk of permanent deportation becomes real. Add to that the strong public animus against anchor babies and H-1B visas, and it may not get us exactly to pre-1965 levels, but it does sufficient to more or less resolve the problem of swamping the American nation with Third World socialist peons.

There is less political will to fix the Constitution, although I notice that the Convocation of the States movement continues to slowly grow and move forward. My biggest concern is that that movement, as good as it is, is missing a key piece, voter integrity, and the rejection of the "voting as secular sacrament" notion that has infected our society. The electorate should be made up only of those who have skin in the game. But I think the pump is primed for a sea change in attitudes in America on that issue as well. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I think a few instances of highly visible voter fraud, which a candidate like Trump would bird-dog into becoming a major political liability, and we're 90% there.

Finally, in order to make any of this doable, the entire edifice of political correctness must be torn down, destroyed, and the earth on which it was built salted and burned. Luckily, I think we're well on our way towards that too, and again, a candidate like Trump is tailor-made for that particular task. Add to that some other voices that have gained prominence over the years—Breitbart, the alt-right in general, even "nice guys" like Mike Rowe or Chris Pratt, and I think that political correctness is in its last stages of grasping at what was once left of its power.

Granted; I admit my position is optimistic almost to the point of wishful thinking. But more unlikely things came to pass to birth the United States during the Revolution. I am yet hopeful that God will be merciful on those of us who seek merely to protect and preserve our religion, our freedom and our peace, our wives and our children.

> Who or what marred the brand name? Three men, William F. Buckley, (((Norman Podhoretz))), and (((Irving Kristol))). Buckley began the National Review tradition of reading out various members of the Right from "the conservative movement", a tradition which began with Buckley's demonization of the John Birch Society and was subsequently continued by (((David Frum))) and Rich Lowry.

While all true, I should point out that the reason they were able to hijack the term conservative is because the media (already well in the pocket of the left by this time, but they did a better job of hiding it) anointed them as the recognized leadership of same.

@ 7 I would much rather have my rights endowed by a transcendent creator God.I would much rather have my rights endowed by a pope.FIFY: That will be the result of your proposition: who will define and enforce the endowment of your rights.

I never liked to classify a specific ideology as "conservative." I tried to stick with Republican or Right Wing, or "mainstream conservative" for non-ideological windbags like Erik Erickson. Not that it matters.

Burke's conservative principle is still valid. The constitution didn't last long, but the Bill of Rights definitely paid its own way. It wasn't the penumbras that did us in.

What changed "conservative" to an insult was the mere fact that they now wish to conserve their own seats of power in a corrupt status quo, ruling a divided proletariat.

The failure of the Republican-controlled White House, House, and Senate to accomplish any of the conservative movement's declared goals also played a role.

This more than anything put me off conservatism and Republicanism more than anything else. I came of political age during Reagan's first attempt in 1976. I even found myself in a Bircher meeting back then. Most of them were twice my age and a despondent bunch.

I can't even consider Reagan's administration as "conservative" under the old definition as the globalists neocons were well represented.

It took 30 years of bad fruit to finally see this tree for what it was. Not to mention this blog was instrumental in bringing that into focus. I'm only voting R this fall because of Trump, otherwise I haven't voted at all in national elections the last eight years.

To be a conservative now means to deny that an American national interest exists: in a nutshell, this is the anti-gentilism of the Talmudists/pharisees. Here the term antisemitism is used in the same manner it was used, even created, by the Trotskyite Judeo-Bolsheviks: to dehumanize and destroy those who criticized the Judaic project.The Jews have reestablished the Judaic project under the brand "conservatism." We can say that we now have "international" conservatism and it is national conservatism that is evil (as was "national" -that is non-Jewish - socialism; and as was international socialism located in one nation state the Soviet Union; so is international conservatism; this time the locus is Israel; but controlled by the same tribe.

The breakup of the US is not a cause for despair. A voluntary breakup would be for the best of everyone.

> Not only that but the alt-Right needs to build bridges to the localist, Berned-out alt-Left.

Yeah, because enabling a takeover by your opponents is such a successful strategy.

> The problem, of course, is that there is no way to turn back the clock. The options are to do nothing and get buried or to win by slogging through the blood to get to the other side.

Like I said, there's the voluntary breakup option. Let the states go their own way. If you want to keep the US, shut down all of the federal government and just keep the federal court system as a way for states (not citizens) to settle disputes amongst themselves. One of those matters to be settled would be the common defense.

Vox, good essay and it parallels what I read from the pens of Mr. Sobran and Dr. Pournelle in the past.

However, John Wright specifically wrote that a recent change occurred at this website in the past few months, where "conservative" became a dirty word. I somewhat agree with him - the term "conservative" was tolerated here but not encouraged - but this recent "sea-change" correlates with the fever-pitch hysterical GOPe opposition to the nationalistic-sounding Trump candidacy.

Mr. Wright did not leave the term "Conservatism", it left him. And the divorce was not amiable.

I personally quit using the term as self-description in spring 2000 when the vast majority of Republican delegates I knew backed a liberal like George W. Bush and called him "conservative".

@47 That means that the majority of those living here under whatever auspices they came under will have no incentive to stay once the "gimme dats" dry up and the risk of permanent deportation becomes real.

This is the one thing I think Trump can do without Congress. The wall needn't be physical. Rule by executive order is making the presidency more and more imperial, and Trump can use this for good by writing EO's that:- shut down the gimme dat's to illegals starting with SNAP and any healthcare related services. - kill every company that hires just one illegal with fines and imprisonment for the CEO.- that shut down the sending of money "back home".- that forbids globalist anti-nationalist corporations from hiring foreigner.

Gaiseric, Oh I agree. I do not want to give up on it yet. I have hope that it might still be saved. But the cutting out of the cancer and the chemo afterwards is as likely to kill the patient as just letting the cancer have its way. But...and this is the point...if we don't try the country will die for sure.

I am concerned with those that are excited by the prospect of national dissolution. I don't think it will be the end of our troubles. I think it will be the beginning of a whole new set.

I do appreciate the sense that a clean sweep of institutions may give us a chance to put things back on a firm footing but that is too much like French Revolutionary thinking for me and leads to the guillotine for many a Revolutionary, too.

However, as long as we are all shooting at the Progressives/Leftists/Liberals/SJWs I am content to sort some of those questions out later.

The Alt-Right is the ONLY entity that has rolled anything back and I can get on that bandwagon if it means crushing leftist hopes and dreams.

I think the wrangling over terms is not nearly as profitable as recognizing what has happened and how to fix it.

The orthodox GOP mindset has been defensive. "Winning" was defined as "Things didn't get any worse." This turned the initiative over to the Left...which kept pounding on the door, knowing that the worst they could do is break even.

I think most of us are disgusted with that defensive approach. We want to go onto the offensive. And not merely a sham offensive doomed to failure - the sort of show the GOPe puts on to placate us. A REAL offensive, that takes cultural ground.

What's going on in the GOP is reminiscent of the NRA in the mid-1970s. In the early '70s, the NRA was playing pure defense, and trying to placate the anti-gun fanatics by focusing on hunting. Hell, they were seriously talking about moving the headquarters from Washington to Colorado Springs. And they defined a legislative "victory" as stopping more anti-gun legislation.

The result was a massive grass-roots backlash that ultimately took control and shifted the organization into a political powerhouse. And they took the offensive. If you had told anyone in 1976 that in forty years time, an average citizen could have a concealed carry permit for the asking in 42 states, they would have thought you mad...but that's what happened.

That's what we're doing now. An internal coup de main, intended to shift the strategy from pure defense to offense. We want our country back.

To understand the problem of modern conservative weakness, consider the ancient nation of Israel, the ethnic descendants of Jacob. They had their borders, the Law of Moses, the temple, and Jerusalem as their capital. If the Israelites, the Hebrews, became a minority, or even extinct, through declining birthrates, then their borders, the Law, the temple, and their capital would be utterly meaningless. The nation of Israel was not the borders, law, temple, or capital, but the people, the ethnic group. In fact, when the Babylonians invaded (immigrated), they decimated the people and plundered the temple because it meant nothing to them past its monetary value.

This is what is happening to America. Her borders, her Constitution, her liberty are meaningless without the nation, the people who gave rise to it (Euro-Anglo peoples). Immigrants will (for the most part) only see the borders, Constitution, and liberty as something to be plundered. In fact, this is what the Progressive movement wants.

You're painting with too broad a brush. John C. Wright, I, and all those people who were read out of the conservative movement by its current "leaders," are the victims of a neo-con takeover: former liberals who found modern liberalism too far left so they crossed the aisle and started dragging conservatives leftward, throwing out the staunchest resisters to lighten the load. Paleo-cons have not succeeded in turning back the tide SO FAR but with every bathroom edict and safe space demand, our ideas become more appealing to more people. By your definition, I'm not alt-right and my Mom isn't in the DAR so I'm No True American; I'm fine with that, on Groucho's grounds. But as you squeeze the qualifications for membership ever tighter, take a long look at the Libertarian Party, who also are convinced of their righteousness and purity, and who also have no hope of implementing their reforms to improve things.

I think that modern cities are actually Satanic by design (though a strong argument can be made about the population). Since most cities would burn down in the much deserved chaos following the EBT cards failing the first time, this whole dissolution thing might work out like a cleansing fire.

In keeping with Vox's desire for this site to be an encouragement to Believers, I give you "How Firm a Foundation" and point out verse 5 for its application to this point.

"How Firm a Foundation, Ye Saints of the Lord"by "Keen," 1787, alt.

1. How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!What more can He say than to you He hath saidWho unto the Savior for refuge have fled?

2. In every condition, -- in sickness, in health,In poverty's vale, or abounding in wealth,At home and abroad, on the land, on the sea, --The Lord, the Almighty, they strength e'er shall be.

3. "Fear not, I am with thee, oh, be not dismayed,For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.

4. "When through the deep waters I call thee to go,The rivers of sorrow shall not overflow;For I will be with thee thy troubles to blessAnd sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.

Every movement has it's intellectual powerhouses who help define the movement. However some of those movements devolve into intellectual naval gazing rather than action. (L)ibertarians are among that group. Hopefully the alt-right will not be.

Three men, William F. Buckley, (((Norman Podhoretz))), and (((Irving Kristol))). Buckley began the National Review tradition of reading out various members of the Right from "the conservative movement", a tradition which began with Buckley's demonization of the John Birch Society and was subsequently continued by (((David Frum))) and Rich Lowry . . . Podhoretz, the father of (((John Podhoretz))), was the liberal Democrat who edited Commentary and helped it "transform the Jewish left into the neoconservative right". Irving Kristol, the father of would-be third-party founder (((Bill Kristol))), is the founder of neonconservatism.

Well, I just have to say that I am (((appalled))) at the preponderance of hate speech in the OP. Maybe it's high time I head over to (((Facebook))).

What is the word you use for someone who believes 1. God is and He created reality (all things) 2. Human life is created in the image of God 3. Each individual has the responsibility to recognize and worship the true God; Nations have the responsibility to enable, even be hospitable/biased towards, those who worship Jehovah; for God judges individuals and nations. 4. The family is the foundation stone of human society; the man being the head; husband and wife being one flesh 5. Jesus Christ is Truth; Man is to love the Truth: personal and societal truth is when thoughts and statements and doctrines reflect the Truth 6. the Rights of Man (life, liberty, and pursuit of blessedness under God) are inherent in man as being made in the image of God ( In the Declaration, happiness replaced blessedness; but they are synonymous in the original meaning); And may be determined by God's revealed word: Scripture, not the doctrines of the elders which is paganism

Beauty is when art reflects natural or divine truth. Personally, even though I am an artist, I do not think this is relevant in this list; for beauty is created through an intellect subservient to God or godly tradition.

@ 6 How about the word "sane"? What do you think a mind conformed to reality is?

To what degree to you equate "Western Civilization" with Christianity?

And, do you believe the title "Synagogue of Satan" used by Christ in Revelation is a fair title for certain (((elements))) of society today?

I know that you've stated that you are a Nationalist for all nations and so support Israel in that sense, but do you believe that modern genetic Jews are who not-yet-fufilled Biblical prophesy is referring to, or do you have a different interpretation? (I know there are a billion schools of thought on that...)

@Joe DoakesPaleo-cons have not succeeded in turning back the tide SO FAR but with every bathroom edict and safe space demand, our ideas become more appealing to more people. By your definition, I'm not alt-right and my Mom isn't in the DAR so I'm No True American; I'm fine with that, on Groucho's grounds.

Are you a conservative? Or are you a paleoconservative? If the former... why do you bother bringing up the paleocons? If the latter, why even get offended at all?

It's like someone in the Roman Catholic Church getting offended over someone criticizing the Episcopal Church. Unless you perceived the criticism applying to yourself as well, there's no reason why you should take offense.

But as you squeeze the qualifications for membership ever tighter, take a long look at the Libertarian Party, who also are convinced of their righteousness and purity, and who also have no hope of implementing their reforms to improve things

Try re-reading this paragraph again:"A Constitutionalist can be our ally. A Zionist can be our ally. A National Socialist can be our ally. A Pan-Arabist can be our ally. We don't care who you are or what you believe, as long as you're aiming in the direction of the enemies of nationalism and Western civilization."

There's a false dichotomy between keeping a group ideologically pure and getting things accomplished. At the very least, conservatives have both A) not been ideologically pure and B)not gotten things accomplished in the 2000s. Or at least they didn't get the things they claimed they thought were important accomplished.

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish."

Chaplin's speech certainly has its problems, but parts show good insight for the time at which it was given. I suspect he would have greatly revised it if he had the known the context of the present day.

But as you squeeze the qualifications for membership ever tighter, take a long look at the Libertarian Party, who also are convinced of their righteousness and purity, and who also have no hope of implementing their reforms to improve things.

We are happy to ally with a broad ideological spectrum. But we will never make the mistake of permitting those who have "seen the light" to become leaders.

You can be allies. Or you can follow. But otherwise, shut the fuck up.

To what degree to you equate "Western Civilization" with Christianity?

Christianity is one of the pillars of Western Civilization, along with the European races, the Graeco-Roman tradition, and science/technology.

And, do you believe the title "Synagogue of Satan" used by Christ in Revelation is a fair title for certain (((elements))) of society today?

Certain (((elements))) certainly appear to fit the bill rather better than any other candidates. But I do not consider myself to be capable of conclusively interpreting prophecy. So, I simply don't know.

61. You're painting with too broad a brush. John C. Wright, I, and all those people who were read out of the conservative movement by its current "leaders," are the victims of a neo-con takeover: former liberals who found modern liberalism too far left so they crossed the aisle...

The Neo-Cons jumped off the Democratic Party in protest of the takeover of the party by the anti-war crowd in 1968. The neo-cons formed the Scoop Jackson Democrats: socially progressive and militaristic.

Tupla-J wrote:What's the deal with the (((triple brackets)))?Is someone going to ask this with every post anymore? If you google triple parentheses, it's easy to find the answer. Heck, there's even a Wikipedia article on it.

@66. A Christian, mostly. I think over-worrying about what labels someone calls you is somewhat beside the point. Especially given as the alt-right (and allies) evolving motto when faced with any of that kind of stuff is "We don't care."

VD wrote:And, do you believe the title "Synagogue of Satan" used by Christ in Revelation is a fair title for certain (((elements))) of society today?

Certain (((elements))) certainly appear to fit the bill rather better than any other candidates. But I do not consider myself to be capable of conclusively interpreting prophecy. So, I simply don't know.

That part of Revelation was written to Christian congregations of John's time, about then-current events. The future-part started in Rev 4:1

The two references were:

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.-Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.---So, Synagogue of Satan was whoever claimed to be Jews (regardless of if popular opinion of today would agree or disagree with the claim) and who persecuted Christians.

1. Look back on how "Liberal" used to mean libertarian, but now means socialist or progressive.2. Between the purges and the gangrene of neo-conservatism, it led to amputation from the body politic.3. There is another term that is losing its meaning - Western Civilization.

What I don't understand is the goal of "Western Civilization" other than it will be whatever the nationalist barbarians call their government and society after they are victorious.

The Third Reich claimed to be part of or an extension of Western Civilization. As did those of the French Revolution.

When I describe myself as a constitutional Christian, I can point to the period of the first 5 presidents where they were still working things out, but had the right ideas and the families lived in peace, believed in the bible and God, and generally prospered.

I consider that, or with some known fixes, as the height of Western Civilization. I don't know the nature of your alternative.

Civilization is more than government. It is also the arts. That is usually the first to go and the last to be restored. We don't see Shakespeare or Beethoven. We get Schoenberg and ugly, vulgar, profane works with the desired ideology - on either side.

"Western Civilization" is a vague term of something historically nice, especially when it is used instead of "Christendom", since it would require re-Christenization: An awakening, evangelism. One can create civilization from Christians. Pagans are a different matter.

Whites have been de-Christianized. Many are churchians. I don't see this changing, and have trouble imagining a post-Christian "Western Civilization".

Both the bible and constitution are parchment barriers, but breaching the former leads to hell, and the latter to tyranny, but the breaches are no less breaches from malinterpretation rather than outright rejection.

It is a mistake to use the term "conservative" as shorthand for cucks or Republican enemies of the Alt-Right (or its goals). A majority (or at the least a plurality) of Trump's supporters would self-describe as conservative, and labeling these natural allies as the enemy is counterproductive. The conservation of Western Civilization is a fundamentally conservative goal. The conservation of the American nation is a fundamentally conservative goal.

Markku, I was thinking more along the lines of rhetorical usages and not that they actual fulfilled the same role as the people who harassed the church at Smyrna.

I'm just trying to work my way through my own cognitive dissonance from years of foolish thinking about the subject. I've moved a lot on these ideas since the early 2000's when I stared examining a lot of things I took for granted.

Markku, I was thinking more along the lines of rhetorical usages and not that they actual fulfilled the same role as the people who harassed the church at Smyrna.

Well, I wouldn't use it. If you are going to use an extremely harsh expression from the Bible, you have to be able to conclusively prove on demand that it applies. If you can only make a circumstancial and tentative case when the enemy challenges you - which they will - you end up at rhetorical disadvantage.

Markku wrote:Well, I wouldn't use it. If you are going to use an extremely harsh expression from the Bible, you have to be able to conclusively prove on demand that it applies. If you can only make a circumstancial and tentative case when the enemy challenges you - which they will - you end up at rhetorical disadvantage.Well, it's not necessarily hard to do with that particular label. You may not want to discuss it publicly (for fear of (((retribution))) I presume) but that hardly means that it can't be done, and relatively easily too.

@ 74No. All things of western - gentile - civilization have been marked for destruction. Art is but a subset of what is of greater importance; and artists are a subset of the population; we are not to raise ourselves up as prophets, priests, or seers.

The later comment by John Wright explained his passion for keeping the term for posterity, making references to other subverted terms such as "liberal" and even "gay".

The fallacy in comparing to these two examples, the first of which is twisted to it's opposite, the second repurposed entirely for a different use is as follows.

Conservatism is by definition relative. To it's culture, time millieu. It relates to the status quo. Many of the things he attributes to it are context specific (Christianity, small government, etc.)

I think he will have to conceed that the brand has been tarnished - that much is objective & independent of any intrinsic meaning he may believe the word has.

Perhaps we should work to agree on a compromise, middle ground. By middle ground, I mean scorched earth middle ground - nobody shall have the epithet from now on. Those who find the term beyond redemption should also self police themselves never to use it. Instead, cuckservative for GOPe and whatever seems appropriate for those still worthy of respect who have yet to embrace the term's demise (paleo, constitutionalist, traditionalist) if they object, the onus is on them to find something more suitable.

I didn't declare the other points irrelevant, did I? Also, beauty is more than just art. See fatshaming and slutshaming feminist rantings.

At any rate, beauty is under attack and so must be defended. You fight the battles being fought. That it is arguably not the most important is irrelevant: Britain didnt abandon Portugal on the logic that Napoleon himself was in Russia.

Perhaps, but if you're going to use it, then you'd better prepare for how you are going to respond when challenged. Not just imagine it can be done, because you had some initial thoughts as to how you might begin approaching it. When it's rhetoric time, that's not enough.

This is a great topic to wake up to. I *really* enjoy the direction you have taken your blog, Vox. It's rapidly becoming the most relevant, most defining Alt-Right resources on the web. It has new significance and importance, and I salute you for making it so.

Like Ann Coulter said....don't take advice from your enemies. Since Vox wants to destroy Conservatism, and replace it with the Alt-Right, just say no.

This is a more sophisticated form of a typical Libertarian ploy. The Libertarians often would put themselves on one side, and everyone else was represented by the RINOs on the other side. I assume they're smart enough to know better, but we are talking about the original inside the box thinkers.

What do John 'reach across the aisle''hated by Rush''Maverick' McCain, John 'Cryin' Man' Boehner, and El !Jebe! have in common.....They are not Conservatives.

Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. As the dominant political strain in the US, everyone wants to be a Conservative, even those who hate conservatism.

The idea that the constitution is transcendent is a uniquely American thing in how it is one of the American useful fictions.

A says: "The average life of a currency is 70 years."B replies: "But the dollar has been here forever!"A might reply: "You know it's not the same dollar?"

In the same way the greenback is not the silver note is not the petrodollar is not the gold note is not Lincoln's paper money, the Constitution, since we pretend to amend it by just reading the words differently, is not the same Constitution.

I would rather the eagle fly free and we had some notion of shared values and common principles, which the propositional nation doesn't - the people are in big confusion because they don't like their constitution.

It was one of the remarks from Into the Cannibal's Pot that the continental attitude the Boers inherited let them dismantle the government without ending themselves as a people. America may really be stuck within the stockholm syndrome of the government really being the only thing that "we all belong to".

#10.For me, I stopped calling myself a conservative years ago when I noticed the likes of Boehner and McConnell giving in to every one of the left's programs, all the while claiming that a vote for them meant that they would "fight" Obama, et al.

You don't go into a fight by curling up into the fetal position and sucking your thumb. That's the picture of the modern "conservative."

I don't think that quite describes it. Your first sentence describes the betrayal of the so-called leaders of "conservatism" who gave Housenigga Hussein everything he asked for as they told the Tea-Party Patriotards who voted them into office they "opposed" him. So we can dismiss the Kentucky Undertaker, Weepin' Johnny, Miss Lindsay and Paul Ryan as 'treasonous criminal opportunists' - they obviously never once had any intention of opposing the genocidal agenda of the regime situated in Sodom-on-Potomac.

What does this say about those who continued to support the R-Jeseys for decades despite this long record of betrayal - which has been continuous from the era of Beelzebubba? MPAI must explain a lot of it, but not everything. Let's take 2 simple examples: public edumacayshun and TV.

It should have been obvious since the 1990s that anyone sending their kids to public skools was sending them to an indoctrination and abuse center. Vox has been stating "home school or die" for how long?? A decade or more?? Even James Dobson called for Christians to pull their children out of public schools in the 1990s - it was enemy territory then and been before. Most of the folks who make up the Repuke base - though they (correctly) sensed something was going very wrong - not only refused to remove their kids but even borrowed fake money from the criminal cartel who runs the show to send their offspring to Marxoid finishing schuls known as 'Universities'. As they saw goes, denial ain't just a river in Greater Israel…

Pont 2 is related. Like public edumacayshun, it should have been obvious decades ago that what is absurdly referred to as the "mainstream media" or "legacy press" or "professional journalism", along with all of entertainment, the arts, etc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Kill YT, Inc. who dance to its Klezmer tunes. The most accurate and apt terms for such "journalists" are Lügenepresse or Ministry of Truth. Did any one take the often stated advice over the years to turn them off, ignore them and get rid of their TVs - especially not paying for things like cable subscriptions which just into the already too deep pockets of Kill YT, Inc.?

Massive normalcy bias and MPAI explain much of it but maybe not everything. Of course that which calls itself Christianity has been taken over by the SJWs for a long time too - even the so-called "conservative" denominations. You saw these idiots lining up in droves to virtue-signal about Ebola or to build more sewers for negroid "Christians" who support and endorse the ANC's genocide of Afrikaners who've been there longer than the Bantu have. Ever see any of them attempting to evangelize a place like the UK - where Christianity is largely dead?? At long last, more folks are awakening to reality - taking the red pill - than ever before.

I think most of us are disgusted with that defensive approach. We want to go onto the offensive.

Since conservatism is reactionary, as Vox pointed out, if it tries to go on the offensive, the question immediately becomes: to what end? Conservatives band together over their opposition to progressives, but different ones oppose different things and therefore want to conserve different things. Small battles over very specific issues we all agree on can be won, such as gun rights. But a sustained "conservative movement" that covers a broad range of issues is impossible, because what would it conserve?

Some (especially the leaders) want to roll back and freeze time about 1994, post-Cold War, right when Republicans took the Congress and it seemed like we were gaining ground. Others want to go back to a 1950s America. Others would go back to 1860, or to the Articles of Confederation and never form the Union. Others think it would be enough to reverse women's suffrage. And some would "conserve" all the way back to before the Enlightenment. In the mix with all this mess is that some end up on our side because progressives are taking away their rights, while others are here because they think progressives have given people too many rights. I'll bet Sarah Palin calls herself as a conservative, but does she have more in common with feminists or with someone who thinks the French Revolution was evil?

There's no common ideology beyond "Hey, not so fast," which is why it's been commandeered as a movement by people who do have a specific ideology that they've been able to sell as compatible with conservatism.

Anyone on the alt-right who has not read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" really should.

That's utterly ridiculous. Can you imagine the Left saying "anyone on the Left who has not read Marx & Engel's Kapital" really should?

I seriously suspect some dialectics are either autistic or retarded. They show about the same ability to grasp the existence of rhetoric, let alone its importance, as those who are limited to rhetoric.

I do not expect the USA to remain intact...and you tell us not to despair.

The (((enemy))) you encounter will not have A-10s but high points held sideways.

If you had told anyone in 1976 that in forty years time, an average citizen could have a concealed carry permit for the asking

How many years before that was it that you could order a fully auto tommy gun from the sears catalog with no ID?

I have it on (((good authority))) that you have been ethnicity-reassigned as a goy, Rabbi B.

It doesn't matter what you self identify as. I have been reassigned as STR8 for noticing the 6 months of coverage of the BLOND woman that beat up 2 Philly (((faggots))) should have been covered less than the nigger moslem serial killer of gays in 3 states(including one in Philly) named Mohamad Ali Brown, who was caught 2 weeks after the Ferguson Liquor store robber was killed by a cop.

German conservatives during the interwar years were far less cucked than our modern ones, but they still lost to radicals because all they wanted to do was play politics during an existential national crisis.

"The rot must have set in earlier as G.K Chesterton wrote this in 1924:"

Chesterton also appreciated the essential hubris involved in the Left's Year Zero assumptions-- the cult of "progress," the idea that they can design a society from the ground up that is superior to one that has evolved, culturally and biologically, over millenia, without ever pausing to understand what it is that they are destroying:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

The number one problem in the U.S. is the decline of entrepreneurship. Our economy is becoming less dynamic. It is well-known that small to medium sized businesses create the opportunities for the majority of us. Yet, there is hardly a discussion of this issue among the alt-right.

Ahazuerus wrote:Of course it makes sense. As someone else said, it was written for first century Christians, most of whom were jewish. Their word for church was synagogue.

That's completely moronic for two reasons. First, the point is not the word Synagogue, but the words "them which say they are Jews, and are not". Second, a Christian assembly is only once called Synagogue, and that's in the letter of James. All other times, the word is ekklēsia.

I would love to start my own business. Unfortunately startup costs, an increased culture of suing combined with the complexities and costs of protection, combined with ever, ever more laws saying what you can and cannot do... it's just not worth it.

That opinion piece from WashPo makes it sound like Boomers are just instead just more tolerant and accepting of risk. Riiiiiight.

For many years I would have considered myself a liberal or a left-leaning centrist if I thought about it at all (I still would go along with much of classical liberalism) . I disliked the left-right paradigm anyhow and a few years ago it seemed utterly defunct to me. But if I had to label myself I guess it would be alt-right now.

After years of believing that nationalism was evil and was a precursor to war; that there was something worthy about feminism; that there were positive sides to muticulturalism; that climate change was real, I don't believe in any of it anymore. And I feel mugged.

I would call that overly literal reading. As I originally noted, many symbols and metaphors are used to refer to the same basic division among people.

You think he meant Jews literally when he was writing to Christian converts, using the term to indicate true followers? No, he meant those who consider themselves children of God. Who think they're saved, but aren't.

less charitably, they were submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left

Crucial, when one realizes that this is further extended into the Churchian attendee's typical mindset, and the false Christ of the last Century in the West. But Jesus wasn't Crude! He was Super Duper Nice! Trump is so Crude! They've never experienced a win in their lifetime and are wont to admit it - inevitably failing to see that the Injustice and unnaturalness of their constant losing is much much more Evil than simply being "Crude". He smacks someone around and the loser Cucks feel the pain.

114. kurt9 The number one problem in the U.S. is the decline of entrepreneurship.Just after Obama was elected and as Obamacare was on the horizon, many small businesses began to close, reduce operations, or lay off employees in anticipation. Others following the example of Karl Denninger, reduced their tax exposure by withdrawing as much as possible from the economy.

Vox, than you. Great clarification of what truly motivates the AltRight. It is really that simple:

1. Nationalism2. Western Civilization3. Winning

Western Civilization has always included nationalism. Always. And we embrace it and the diversity (yes, the diversity) it affords the world. The European and light-skinned peoples' diversity that has so enriched the world. Nationalism protects that richness of culture.

And we openly support the right for non-Western nations and peoples to delineate their boundaries and borders however they see fit, based on ethnicity and racial lines if they wish. We understand the simple truth that loving one's own does not necessitate hatred and genocide of the others. The brainwashed and stunted among us cannot understand that. The demonic among us understand that truth perfectly, but hate it, and keep filling the zombie-class with fears, lies, and distortions to keep them on the front lines.

What is so confusing to so many, even within the Right, is that they do not truly understand Western Civilization. They understand winning, they leverage every single advantage they can in advancing their own causes. They understand nationalism, so much so that they actively and consciously deny European and light-skinned peoples their right to their own nations.

But they don't understand Western Civilization. It is a great enigma to most of them. Because they are of darkness,and they cannot understand the Light. They do not understand Christ.

It strikes me as perfectly obvious that what people wanted to conservative was 'the American way of life.' By that measure, oddly enough, capital "C" Conservative are not conservative in any way, but many Dems are.

kurt9 June 09, 2016 12:00 PM The number one problem in the U.S. is the decline of entrepreneurship. Our economy is becoming less dynamic. It is well-known that small to medium sized businesses create the opportunities for the majority of us. Yet, there is hardly a discussion of this issue among the alt-right.

I think that's the fault of the schools. "Entrepreneur" is a dirty word - they'd rather be talking about diversity, LGBTQ, and trannies in the bathroom.

As others have noted, a concise and biting and excellent post, Vox. Also lots of excellent and deliberative comments, which I feel compelled to comment on, as follows:

@12 Be Not Afraid: I didn't come of age during Reagan's time, but I did complete my transition from my liberal upbringing during that time. So for me the transition from liberal to conservative to altright has been pretty rapid. When you start rethinking things and discarding prior shibboleths, you don't stop.

@13 Bobby Farr: Your question has already been answered, but I'll point out the obvious as well. Once certain (((immigrants))) reached a certain ascendancy via numbers in educational institutions and the media, they began working assiduously not merely to challenge existing beliefs and authority, but to undermine existing structures as well. I've saved some interesting newspaper clips from the early 1900s from when Jews in NY and across the entire US began challenging any expression of Christianity in schools (hymns to prayers to school vacations). Add in WWII and holocaustianity and it became nonstop pedal to the metal.

@16 Haven Monahan: I believe you err in blaming Southern Whites for being "unwilling" to pay a fair White man's wage. Whites were physically less fit to labor in the heat and withstand the various illnesses engendered thereby than Negroes. As far as those in the north doing better, I believe it has been well documented (if you want links I'll provide them) that your average slave had better nutrition and lifespan than recent White immigrants in the north. They were valuable property and, aside from the inevitable violent outliers, generally not savaged but at least minimally cared for.

@34 anonymos-coward: If respect for human life and personal property is a a minimal bar for being a sentient human, that raises the question I've raised here (to opprobrium) before: Are certain subspecies of homo sapiens fully human? Are they truly equal before God?

@38 FALPhil: You are spot on regarding the need to let go of the emotional attachment to the artificial construct of the United States. Again, for me, since I only truly began to understand and appreciate it in college and later overseas, it was difficult, but as I noted earlier, once you begin reconsidering prior "truths" you don't artificially just stop and say beyond here there be dragons. For me, that absolute boundary is Christ, but everything man-made or man-said is open to re-examination.

For my husband, it's been a bit more difficult. As an army brat who loved and was rightly proud of his father, and whose entire identity was merely as a generic White American, it's been a difficult baggage to discard. The change to a fully Christian and racial awareness was fairly easy because the roots were there, but his identity was closely tied to the existing US structure. Letting go of the world policeman role and accepting that the US since 1945 was the exception rather than the norm has been a gradual and painful process for him.

**************

While I'm not a joiner and neither a VFM nor officially dread ilk, I've been reading here for years now and, as my understanding has changed and grown, gradually this blog has moved up on my reading to where I now come here first upon turning on my computer. Thank you, Vox, for providing the framework and clear thinking and direction for this forum of thinking allies. Finally, your point about accepting various allies but never making the mistake of putting them in charge needs to be emphasized. While I hope to have a place to reside in whatever new structure replaces the existing America, I wouldn't expect to have any role other than as a grateful and welcome guest. My children or grandchildren, as 4th and 5th generation "Americans," I believe could expect to more fully participate. Leadership - that's generations later. As we are told there's a time for all things under heaven - and it's not all right now.

kurt9 wrote:The number one problem in the U.S. is the decline of entrepreneurship. Our economy is becoming less dynamic. It is well-known that small to medium sized businesses create the opportunities for the majority of us. Yet, there is hardly a discussion of this issue among the alt-right.

It's likely because taxes and regulation are strangling those businesses.

Deport all the aliens who are illegally collecting welfare, aliens who are taking American jobs at low wages, knock a few regulations out, and then suddenly there is room to breath for Americans who want to work.

That's because it's not. "Muh Economy" is right up there with "Muh Constitution." We are facing the demographic and subsequent ethnic and cultural extinction of the west. Concern over how many small businesses will start in 2050 is utterly irrelevant for the time being.

Ok. I get the Nationalism part. But for a few% of Cherokee and Choctaw, I'm over 95% Anglo-Saxon. My family was here on both sides during the Revolutionary War, and were among the original settlers from England. So, preserving a largely Anglo-Saxon nation is something I can sign onto.

Also, I get the winning part. In true Jacksonian tradition, I'm far past the point of caring whether we win "fairly" or not. I have no problem with Trump co-opting the tactics of the enemy in order to win - much like White people did when eradicating most native tribe members, and in demonizing the Japanese and Germans in WWII. If the enemy is willing to cut off heads in the middle east, then we shouldn't shy away from it. If the left is going to use the politics of personal destruction to attack Republicans, then in Trump, there is finally a guy willing to use the same tactics on them.

But please define what you mean by Western Civilization - because that could mean a lot of things. Marxism was birthed in the West, and was an offshoot of the philosophies of Rouseau, who inspired the French Revolution. Then you have the Anglo philosophers like Locke and Smith. Calvinism and Protestantism were inspired in the West. But Western Culture was also grounded in the very Catholic and authoritarian cultures of France and Spain. Spain, and the Catholic tradition, have obviously influenced much of the Western Hemisphere. And then you have the other offshoots of Socialists traditions - such as the Fascists. So what exactly do you mean about preserving Western Civilization?

@16 Haven Monahan: I believe you err in blaming Southern Whites for being "unwilling" to pay a fair White man's wage. Whites were physically less fit to labor in the heat and withstand the various illnesses engendered thereby than Negroes.

that's the same kind of BS john McCain wants you to believe. its his excuse for allowing the illegal alien invasion "Who's gonna pick the lettuce?"

Conservatives have been dealt the easiest hand ever, in terms of what they need to do to defeat the left.

All they have ever had to do is oppose whatever the Left puts out next. That's it. Just reflexively oppose whatever the Left does.

They'll tell you that's sophomoric, unenlightened, you gotta have some meat behind it, yada yada. They can't see that there IS meat behind that strategy. The Left is wrong, the Left is NEVER led by leftism towards truth. If they ever happen upon truth, it's by accident and very rare. So, simply by opposing whatever they propose, YOU ARE LED TOWARDS TRUTH.

As I said, the easiest strategic hand that anybody has ever been dealt, evah.

And still, conservatives screw it up and fall back into infighting and "stragery" and whatnot every time. When the task before us is easy and straightfoward.

So to hell with them, if they won't fight they can get out of the way.

@140 Andon: I'm not certain to whom, precisely. your criticism applies. I'm not saying Whites cannot or will not do certain work for fair wages. I am noting, as supported by historically documented fact, that White indentured servants died like flies when used as manual laborers in the early South, due to lack of fitness for the heat and lack of immunity to the diseases then extant. Today it's a very different story due to epigenetics, modern medicine, etc.

Conservatism was never an organic movement in the U.S. neither was it a natural attitude or outlook. Conservatism is a remunerative decades-long propaganda campaign funded by a loose coalition of industrialists, businessmen with large estates, the defense industry, and, somewhat later, Israel enthusiasts. Its patriotism and "conservative values" are facades. Its goals are a low tax and regulatory environment, keeping labor costs down, protecting and expanding arms sales domestically and abroad, trade liberalization, and ensuring unqualified U.S. support of Israel.

In their efforts to keep wages in check and ensure defense production continued after WWII, these interests used the threat of communism to thwart (white/white-ethnic) labor solidarity and to guaranty a global market for U.S. arms sales. A Texas oil man bankrolled, allegedly, Billy Graham to snow Evangelicals about the danger of trade unionism. Buckley and Neuhaus and other Conservative Catholic twits similarly mystified many Catholics into thinking that the Conservative agenda was self-evidently part of the deposit of the faith. The abortion issue was an ideal wedge to break Catholics away from the Democrats who tended to have better instincts on labor issues and private sector concentration. I'm not surprised when I visit the think tank websites of these Catholic intellectuals and see familiar neocons (parentheses omitted) on their policy board.

These interests fund D.C. think tanks which generate propaganda for talk radio hosts and lawmakers alike about the existential threat of higher capital gains and estate taxes to the American way of life. The talk radio arm of this propaganda effort bemuses and agitates lumpen whites with terms like "death tax," "freedom," "RINO," "protectionism," "number one state-supporter of terrorism," "the real racists," "Democrat party plantation," and "national security." It was fascinating to hear talk radio hosts and congressmen opining on the same obscure Iranian generals and facilities on the same day during the Iran deal.

Cuckservative operators are braying so loudly because Trump is an absolute nightmare for them. He not beholden to the interests that provide their livelihood, and his foreign policy and immigration stance threatens the revenue streams of their paymasters. He's made nice noises about Putin/Russia and questioned the necessity of NATO. Imagine all that NATO pork evaporating. Saying anything positive about Russia also triggers the neocons inbedded in this cynical marketing scheme. That he is pro-Israel, has Jewish grandchildren, and made his obeisance to AIPAC didn't help him with the Renegades. Perhaps they're animated about the Russia-Syria relationship and its impact on Israel, a decline in defense underwriting, or possibly an ancestral hatred of the Russian people.

Trump's immigration stance threatens the bottom line of both businesses big and small who profit off of labor arbitrage and are hellbent on strikebreaking the entire country. His instincts on trade are also anathema to the donors behind the curtain.

Faceless wrote:I would rather the eagle fly free and we had some notion of shared values and common principles, which the propositional nation doesn't - the people are in big confusion because they don't like their constitution.

It was one of the remarks from Into the Cannibal's Pot that the continental attitude the Boers inherited let them dismantle the government without ending themselves as a people. America may really be stuck within the stockholm syndrome of the government really being the only thing that "we all belong to".

That may be true in some states (esp. coastal), but most maintain the Jacksonian tradition. It's difficult to subvert because it's more of a cultural instinct than an ideology, let alone an institution.

My question is answered. I will call myself a 'Constitutionalist' hereafter because you have burned to the ground the perfectly good word 'Conservative' and now use it to refer to the betrayers of conservatism.

Mark Levin often uses the term Constitutionalist to refer to himself, or constitutional conservatism.

But you are now a Newspeak-speaker, just like the Left, who use the word 'marriage' to refer to sodomy alliances, so that conservatives, excuse me, constitutionalists, must use the word 'traditional marriage' to refer to marriage.

In the same vein, the Left ate the word 'Liberal' and uses it exclusively to refer to totalitarians, so the poor Libertarians needs must call themselves 'classical Liberals' to describe their position.

On the gripping hand, the word 'curmudgeon' sums up my political and social worldview as well as any other term: just assume whatever anyone else is for, I am against, even if they agree with me. I take my cue not from Edmund Burke, but from Grumpy the Dwarf from Disney's SNOW WHITE.

...In the same vein, the Left ate the word 'Liberal' and uses it exclusively to refer to totalitarians, so the poor Libertarians needs must call themselves 'classical Liberals' to describe their position.

I think Reagan made "liberal" a dirty word so the left started calling themselves "Progressives"

Voxbecause it is obvious that the Constitution has not only failed, completely, by its own stated purpose

the Constitution did not fail.

the People failed.

not that i'm asserting anything so silly as that the Constitution is 'perfect'.

1. Jaypo June 09, 2016 4:16 AMThe rot must have set in earlier as G.K Chesterton wrote this in 1924:

+50 years late to the party and not nearly so perspicacious as Dabney's 1871 article.

9. Atomic Agent 13 June 09, 2016 4:56 AM..and you tell us not to despair.

the United States as currently constituted is wholly evil. it's destruction is a good, even Godly event.

* we pay taxes for the wholesale murder of infants and then permit the murderers to dismember and sell their bodies for profit over and above the tax money we have remitted to them for the murder

* we now allow grown men to enter the same rest rooms as little girls ... and the Federal Government threatens to arrest any who complain or attempt to stop this

* our foreign policy is a scourge upon the ancient churches of the Middle East and North Africa. we are directly responsible for the murder and displacement of untold hundreds of thousands ( millions? ) of members of the Oriental churches and the destruction of their two millenia year old places of worship ( which alone would be a cultural crime simply due to the destruction of art and architecture ).

* to add insult to injury, we will NOT permit the Christian communities we have destroyed to immigrate to the US, preferring instead the muslim "refugees" from Syria.

23. Lovekraft June 09, 2016 6:18 AMMarxists lost the battle against capitalism so they turned their sights on the family in order to remove the traditional family unit as an obstacle. Take down the father, indoctrinate the children and you have rabid sjw brownshirts.

Marxists do NOT believe that they have lost the battle against Capitalism and the war against the family has always been integral to their plans.

remember, Socialist Robert Heinlein was advocating for the seizure of children from their parents so that the State could properly inculcate them *against* religious teaching and 'reactionary thoughts' back in the 1930s.

John Wright wrote:I will call myself a 'Constitutionalist' hereafter because you have burned to the ground the perfectly good word 'Conservative' and now use it to refer to the betrayers of conservatism.You Conservatism was never the Conservatism of the people who have co-opted the word. You seem mighty upset by this. May I suggest you are hanging on too tightly to an inaccurate and inappropriate label that was hung on the Right by Lefties in the first place?

Norman Podhoretz was not a liberal Democrat. By his own admission he was a radical leftist. When the far left went anti-Israel, he decided to take over the Right to ensure Israel's future, and not incidentally, to destroy America. He once said "The Civil War is as distant to me as the War of the Roses". He cares no more for our future than for our past.

If Vox plans to write a sequel to Cuckservative, it should be based on this post.

I couldn't get into the first book. It was too tame and old news. But this post is red meat. I learned something.

I grew up on those magazines. US News and World Report with my mother's milk. Then proudly graduated to National Review and Claremont Review of books. Then the alt right Internet.

I left those NR guys behind a long time ago, but I was too busy evolving my views to pay attention to the whom-whom. Now it makes sense, though. A coupla Jews and a traitor WASP ostracize and shout down the righteous Birchers, silencing truth across the land. Cutting us off in isolated pockets until the burgeoning datalinks reconnected us to the Source. The harder you squeeze, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. Matriarchy couldn't quite manage to turn off the electricity fast enough.

This is the first time the Jews have specifically screwed me over. I am not amused. I combed their broadsheets for the truth, in vain.

Those who disbelieve that the ruling elite will kill the golden goose aren't paying attention. They already have, are, and will continue to. Whither goest whites, the dollar, the family, the free market? What is the goose if not that? Watch Caligula to understand. An elite swims in betrayal and corruption like a fish through water. Then realize that a blind mob is less sane than a single madman.

By the by, it's referentially awkward to distinguish between (Vox) the collective and Vox the individual, since RealName usage is obviously lame.

Vox might be interested in James LaFond's thesis that American freedom is not solely or even primarily based on the rights of Englishmen, but rather resulted from: Free white slaves (bondservants) caught between slavemaster elites and Indian hunters, gradually becoming armed via multisided conflicts, forced to fight to survive, and learning to live free from the Indians, eventually developing a culture nonexistent in Europe.

His Indian heritage may be more American than he knows, if you squint at the map.

On the gripping hand, the word 'curmudgeon' sums up my political and social worldview as well as any other term: just assume whatever anyone else is for, I am against, even if they agree with me. I take my cue not from Edmund Burke, but from Grumpy the Dwarf from Disney's SNOW WHITE.

There's nothing wrong with being a curmudgeon, as long as you are our curmudgeon. You also have a remarkably sane view of the universe, so it's a pleasure to be on the same side.

Think of this as the latest move by a gamesman. Some people are philosophers, and others just too ill-tempered to do other than seek Truth above all else. Others approach the world as if it was a gameboard, and they with the Truth, but with goals of differing victory conditions, and all is subordinate to the strategy and tactics in getting to any one of the victory conditions.

Its interesting to watch. But it means, I take much of what's said with a cup of salt.

James Dixon,False. Conservatism isn't as effective as it should be, but its gone from 'whoozzat' to the dominant political group in the world.

As to your second point, just because you had your head stuck in the sand, doesn't mean something didn't happen. Were you a Libertarian, and got offended that I accurately described one of their standard ploys?

It would be suicide to allow the breakup of the U.S. The west coast of North America would become a Chinese colony, ever anxious to expand eastward. Will Texas stop the Brown Tide on its own, particularly when China is secretly backing them with money and technology? The wheat and corn of the thinly populated Great Plains would soon be theirs.

@23 Lovekraft Marxists lost the battle against capitalism so they turned their sights on the family in order to remove the traditional family unit as an obstacle. Take down the father, indoctrinate the children and you have rabid sjw brownshirts.--

I was thinking, or maybe dreaming, about this the other day.

If a nation is its people, then that is how you undo a nation. A family is how a nation will pass along it's essence to following generations.

Bust up the family, and the anchor to the history of the nation gets broken.

Rabbi B wrote:I'm no prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I foresee a (((visit)))from the ADL in your future.Meh. I'm already banned and reviled wherever I go.Do you think it's the opera cape? I heard they're out of fashion down in the States.

"May I suggest you are hanging on too tightly to an inaccurate and inappropriate label that was hung on the Right by Lefties in the first place?"

You may, but the suggestion misses the target.

It is dishonesty that offends me, not the label.

Newspeak, as described by George Orwell, is the attempt to win arguments and influence people by switching the definition of words between generations, or between sentences.

The word 'conservative' itself is inaccurate, as you say.

One can see flatheaded bunglers deceived into believing the word refers to that mythical straw-filled tribe of straw-brained people who cherish and protect whatever is old because it is old.

These mythical strawmen merely follow yesterday's fashion, not eternal principles, and so are blown here and yon as each day passes.

Likewise every loudmouthed dimwit who asks "What have the conservatives conserved?"

It is a fair question to ask why the sons of Liberty have lost every domestic tussle with the Liberals since FDR (the answer is that Enlightenment philosophy has no immune system against spiritual evil), but absurd to think that conservative struggles, hot wars or cold against monarchy, slavery, fascism and communism were conservationist in nature. We were not trying to preserve the status quo.

Now, no one in his right mind knows anyone who seeks to preserve the status quo, good and bad alike, for its own sake.

No, I take it back. There is one: the Left. They are against Climate Change. They are against changes to the climate that would benefit mankind, like a warmer globe an a longer growing season.

In all fairness, on the other hand, any term can be abused. If I call myself a "Constitutionalist" the loudmouth dimwit can ask me what I constituted, and will ask whether I cherish the amended or unamended versions of which year, or the Constitution of Russia, and on and on.

The only truly accurate term to refer to an antimonarchist is 'Liberal' but that one was long ago burned to the ground, and is now used only as a curse to refer to the deadly enemies of liberty.

If you detect any asperity in my tone, it is because I despise Newspeak.

And I am frankly exasperated when there are any number of perfectly good words and nicknames to call the betrayers of conservatism aside from "conservative".

Might I suggest "Cuckhold" or "RINO" or "Establishment Republican" or "Denebian Slime Devil"?

My question is answered. I will call myself a 'Constitutionalist' hereafter because you have burned to the ground the perfectly good word 'Conservative' and now use it to refer to the betrayers of conservatism.

I didn't burn it to the ground. Buckley, Podhoretz, and Kristol did. Take it up with them.

But you are now a Newspeak-speaker, just like the Left, who use the word 'marriage' to refer to sodomy alliances, so that conservatives, excuse me, constitutionalists, must use the word 'traditional marriage' to refer to marriage.

Watashi bin molto desolee. It's not my first language, nor is it my fourth. I speak whatever language best lends itself to the situation and circumstance.

Better throw up yor arms and give up. If Mark Lavin is a "Constitutionalist" we now have to question its meaning. Mark Lavin talks a good constitutional game until, like the good ole progressives, he finds all kind of extra stuff to explain why the FedGov really has the authority to do whatever he deems "constitutional"

Intellectuals, being defined as those who can overcome their instinctual world-view, have long thought themselves superior to the average White man for that reason.

Taking the mathematical fact of Darwinism seriously, we understand that every emotion and every instinct of the average man is adaptive, and therefore intellectuals that ignore these instincts and emotions, at great effort, are not to be therefore be lauded, but mocked.

Thus, we can recognize that, while the average man can’t understand the PDEs behind modern physics, the average White man can intuitively understand biology and the history of the White race, and then demand that Whites not be cuckolded by being second-class citizens in our own country.

Liberalism and conservatism and socialism are intellectual ideas and movements that intellectuals need to impose through force; nationalism is not.

Why not just use "reactionary", John? It means exactly what you intend to say by "conservative".

Quote:A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.

@66"Beauty is when art reflects natural or divine truth. Personally, even though I am an artist, I do not think this is relevant in this list; for beauty is created through an intellect subservient to God or godly tradition. "

Not to derail the conversation, but how can you disagree with a statement you, in the same sentence, agree with?

I add natural beauty as the source of art in that God created nature and it reflects its glory. So when I said "natural or divine beauty" I meant "direct or indirect portrayals of God's beauty."

If there is a hair's breadth of difference between what I said and what you said, I cannot see it.

My question is answered. I will call myself a 'Constitutionalist' hereafter because you have burned to the ground the perfectly good word 'Conservative' and now use it to refer to the betrayers of conservatism.

Mark Levin often uses the term Constitutionalist to refer to himself, or constitutional conservatism.

But you are now a Newspeak-speaker, just like the Left, who use the word 'marriage' to refer to sodomy alliances, so that conservatives, excuse me, constitutionalists, must use the word 'traditional marriage' to refer to marriage.

Mr. Wright

I think Jaypo's very first post on this thread is very apropos. "Conservatism" wasn't wrecked in the last few months. It has always been rotten. It's only that many more people aside from a few outliers like G.K. Chesterton have become aware of it now.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition......The only sort of reform proposed is one which Conservatives will treat as a convention as soon as it is established; and which reformers are already treating as a convention even before it is established." --G.K. Chesterton

Also, I'm not sure why you want to be associated with a ranting NeverTrumper like (((Mark Levin))).

It seems to me that John Wright's complaint about the demise of ``conservative'' brings up a rhetorical problem: for many, ``conservative'' is synonymous with ``good.'' In their minds, they are good, and they are therefore conservative, and vice versa. Thus, when we say: ``Conservatives never conserved anything, and lost everything,'' they hear: ``You and everything you believe are bad.'' We are attacking their very identity when we attack that word.

I have taken to attacking True Conservatives, instead. E.g.: ``Boner and McStain and Mittens are True Conservatives. Thank God that Trump is not a True Conservative.'' This seems a little more acceptable to the dimwits who cherish their conservative label.

After years of believing that nationalism was evil and was a precursor to war [...] I don't believe in any of it anymore. And I feel mugged.

What changed your mind about this?

Oh, it was a gradual process. I believed an awful lot of the propaganda that was ladled into me growing up. Climate change, the anti-male agenda etc. You accept so much of it without realising you're accepting it. That's why it's so effective as propaganda.

So much of it didn't make real sense, but it kind of does so you go along with a lot of it. Nevertheless, I didn't accept everything, I went to art college for example, there you get served a whole heap of bullshit, but I could never really swallow it.

As far as knowledge goes, the truth is the most important thing of all and I'm also prepared to question my beliefs, so if anybody tells me something I don't agree with, I will still listen to what they had to say. My dad used to complain that he couldn't express his conservative opinions to other people, but I'd always listen to him. I also remember one night, one guy telling me global warming was a scam, I couldn't get my head around that they would tell us such a big lie, but I still listened. I think a lot of people can't let go of their cherished beliefs, but I've always been willing to change my mind.

I suppose the biggest reason for my volte face is discovering the truth about Islam and how/why it's being foisted onto us. There was definitely a Damascene moment for me where I read one night about some demands this "professor" was making about our education system and we had to accomodate Islam. I remember thinking "WTF is this?!" That was the start of my journey. Everything else flowed from there.

Years ago I would never have wanted to believe that I'd agree with Vox's opinions. But I do now. He's right, humans band together and you have to look after your own first. Today I see the existential threat and am trying to tune others into the danger as well. But we have a ways to go.

149. John Wright June 09, 2016 2:39 PMMy question is answered. I will call myself a 'Constitutionalist' hereafter because you have burned to the ground the perfectly good word 'Conservative' and now use it to refer to the betrayers of conservatism.

John, it is the use of 'Conservative' to apply to Republicans which is Newspeak AND YOU KNOW THIS.

here, i will cite some historical facts:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era TR started the 'Progressive Party' ( Bullmoose ), for those who considered normal Republicans insufficiently radical

the Republican Party itself was founded on the Radical, Progressive idea of the Abolition of Slavery, about which the American Whigs had proven to be insufficiently Progressive.

the Republican Party was the party of both Women's Suffrage and the prohibition of alcohol, both radical and progressive causes. both also based on lies.

Nixon ( R ) called for a War on Drugs ( extension of prohibition to other substances), forced desegregation and formed the EPA. all progressive causes.

the Republican Senate members voted for LBJ's War on Poverty in far higher numbers than did the Democrats.

to everyone else:observe how well indoctrinated Mr. Wright has been. even now, even already KNOWING most of the things which i have stated above, he asserts that Republicans are inherently 'Conservative'.

this is the pernicious influence of federally controlled education in this nation.

how many of you are likewise trapped?

169. John Wright June 09, 2016 3:35 PMNow, no one in his right mind knows anyone who seeks to preserve the status quo, good and bad alike, for its own sake.

oh, bull SHIT, John.

the vast majority of people with two digit IQs ( approximately half the population ) aren't even intellectually equipped to evaluate or critique the society in which they were reared.

and that's before we even get into the indoctrination of the youth.you think the Hitler Youth didn't want to preserve all the aspects of the Third Reich, good AND BAD? even though it had never existed before they were born?

in the same way, the Soviet Union raised up the Komsomol and Mao had his Red Guard.

not only do they seek to preserve the "status quo" for good and bad, they do not even permit the status quo to be questioned.

171. Rusty Fife June 09, 2016 3:37 PMWe're not worshiping it.

don't hector me for having the temerity to follow a syllogism to it's obvious conclusion.

re-read what John said.

and you don't have to "worship" it. God provides laws for earthly governance. if you use non-Godly laws, you will have non-Godly governance.

not that having Godly laws really prevented the Jews from running astray.

John Wright:My question is answered. I will call myself a 'Constitutionalist' hereafter because you have burned to the ground the perfectly good word 'Conservative' and now use it to refer to the betrayers of conservatism.

Nothing left to conserve there either. As your fellow Catholic has pointed out, it's too late even for mummification. As VD mentioned, it obviously failed to survive those who started to undermine it almost from the first day (John Marshall's assertion of judicial supremacy should serve a good early example). You and Barnhardt would be better off devoting your talents to taking back your own church from the demonic Marxists who own the sole thing from St. Peters to your local resettlement agency for Somalian Musloids. Most of those in the RC hierarchy are in sore need of the stake and plenty of flame to cure what ails them.

Actually, nationalism is a Protestant thing, and springs out of the Sixteenth Century.

Maybe nationalism between different European groups (such as Czech vs. German), but the sort of nationalism where white Europeans view themselves as a "nation" apart from the Muslims or the other heathens has been there all along. European civilization wouldn't have survived without it.

@143"Conservatism was never an organic movement in the U.S. neither was it a natural attitude or outlook. Conservatism is a remunerative decades-long propaganda campaign funded by a loose coalition of industrialists, businessmen with large estates, the defense industry, and, somewhat later, Israel enthusiasts. Its patriotism and "conservative values" are facades. Its goals are a low tax and regulatory environment, keeping labor costs down, protecting and expanding arms sales domestically and abroad, trade liberalization, and ensuring unqualified U.S. support of Israel."

I always like it when lunatic enemies far, far lost in the grip of their feverish hallucinations take it upon themselves to speak 'ex cathredra' and tell me and mine what our real motives and goals are and were.

You see, to a Morlock, Leftist, or Progressive, I can tell him what sex and race I am, and he must honor my self identification, on the grounds that biological reality counts for nothing.

But he gets to tell me what my innermost thoughts and motives are, and the fact that I have access to my brain and he does not, that counts for nothing.

I am not a conservative either but nobody accuses me of that. I'm a loud libertarian. Another term for that might be "Disenfranchiser." You shouldn't get to vote on what I wear, or listen to, or who I hang out with, or what I say or read. With all due respect, fuck you. And I look forward, unafraid, to a near future where end-to-end encryption, private e-currencies and air-tight anonymity/pseudonymity will choke the State in a Spock-grip similar to that of polio with polio inoculations. I know, I'm talking to dogs, but some among you understand speech, even if you're technology-innocent. People are too stupid to be trusted with the franchise. That is the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the true doctrine of America. The Constitution was just a legalism intended to enact that fundamental doctrine. A good attempt, but we need the technological help from modernists. It's coming, doggies, and we will make it happen, whether you despair or no. Ha!

Groot wrote:And I look forward, unafraid, to a near future where end-to-end encryption, private e-currencies and air-tight anonymity/pseudonymity will choke the State in a Spock-grip similar to that of polio with polio inoculations.

You're so cute. I love it when they still think technology will save them.